Owner data websocket methods are not working

[Caleb Ellis]

The "get_owner_data" and "set_owner_data" websocket methods have not been included in the list of allowed methods for machines, so they can't be done from the client.

Also, I think it'd be nicer if we just added a field on the machine object directly (something like machine.owner_data) so we don't have to keep calling "get_owner_data" every time we navigate somewhere it's needed.

[Dougal Matthews (d0ugal)]

I have added the methods to allowed_methods in the above branch. That should be landing soon.

> Also, I think it'd be nicer if we just added a field on the machine object directly (something like machine.owner_data) so we don't have to keep calling "get_owner_data" every time we navigate somewhere it's needed.

This was considered but since it wont be displayed by default in many places I think the overhead could be too high. However, I agree this would be a sensible change if it is a problem for the UI.

[Caleb Ellis (caleb-ellis)]

Hey Dougal, thanks for fixing the websocket handler bug!

After thinking about it a bit more I would say that adding owner data to the machine object is "nice to have" for the summary page, but borderline essential for client-side filtering to work. Without it I would need to call "get_owner_data" for every machine in the list, then store those results somewhere, at which point why not just cut out the middle man and have it available from the start? I can't comment on what overhead is acceptable, but if you think it could be too high we should drop filtering by workload annotations.

[Dougal Matthews (d0ugal)]

> but borderline essential for client-side filtering to work. Without it I would need to call "get_owner_data" for every machine in the list, then store those results somewhere, at which point why not just cut out the middle man and have it available from the start?

Yup, that makes sense. I had raised this a while ago when we were doing the initial design work. Maybe a new web socket handler dedicated to returning all the owner data would be a good compromise. Then it would be called once when the filtering is being done?